At the end of the day it’s all about the mission. If your family/friends is/are more likely to fly with you in a twin rather that in single (for comfort & subjective reasons), then go for it!
Whether one likes this or not, if there is an issue with family flying with you, then history has shown the best solutions are
Of course there will be exceptions.
Note sure what two dots do, MD.. these two came up ok.
And here is another paragraph.. It is definitely possible to mess up formatting but it involves inserting strange character codes, or combinations of ([ etc.
My wife won’t fly in singles. It doesn’t matter whether she is right or wrong, informed or misinformed, she’ll fly with me in a cabin class twin, but not in a single or non cabin class twin, so if I want her with me (as I do) then I have to have a spacious twin. That’s the beginning and end of that argument!
She also prefers to sit facing backwards without headphones so she has no clue what’s going on. That led a muppet airport manager (luckily no longer in post) to accuse me of illegal public transport because she was in the back when I arrived on the apron!
Incidentally, she also prefers a second pilot, so if anyone wants to go on the EGKB PA31 RHS list, just let me know. No need for MEP, just more likely to find a runway than the aircraft by itself!
Problem with twins is that they make less sense at the lower end. Then you might as well get a single. For me at least, the whole point of twin redundancy and safety also only works if you have pressurization, full de-ice and the ability to climb high into the FL’s (i.e. turbos). It’s a game changer when you have that, but it does mean you’re now botanizing in the higher cost segment and face considerably higher op costs. P337’s, P58’s, Aerostars, C421’s, C340’s etc.
AdamFrisch wrote:
For me at least, the whole point of twin redundancy and safety also only works if you have pressurization, full de-ice and the ability to climb high into the FL’s (i.e. turbos).
I’m sorry but I fail to see what one has to do with the other.
Twin redundancy means you can continue flying with one engine out at a certain altitude to the next suitable airport. ALL light twins can do that if operated in the conditions which allow safe OEI operation.
For light twins without turbos this usually means it has to be able to fly to the nearest airport at around 4500-5000 ft AMSL after a drift down from altitude.
While I agree that FIKI and turbos are a good thing, it depends very much on the main mission if they are required. Pressurisation in any case is something in a league which is out of reach for 99.9 % of private owner/pilots, not only buying but particularly maintaining. I suppose your Commander shows why… and I have seen maintenance bills for replacing a single windshield or something the likes in a pressurized plane.
Those two people which promted this thread have missions which involve regular overwater flying. Just as an example:
That is a 250 NM routing over water. A single, any single including a Vision Jet, will get very wet if an engine fails. Whereas even a lowly Piper Apache will give a much larger scope of options. From any point on this route, which would be flown at maybe 12000 ft or so initially, it should be able to divert successfully to the nearest airport, be that back to Marseille, to the West to Perpignan or Barcelona or to Mahon.
Even in the Swiss landscape, if you fly say Zurich to Geneva at night, the landscape will allow you continue operation to reach a suitable alternate. Clearly, where a light twin will not do the job is over the Alps or over the Himalaya, but even over the Channel even a 2x 150 hp twin which can by certification hold 4000 ft will keep you dry.
Of course the “best” option at the end will be a Citation. But that is not what my intention was with this thread. The question I wanted to put forth is how anyone who has operated these light twins sees them in comparison to a single operation and cost wise.
I know two people who operated Twin Commanches, one with turbo and one without and both told me that maintenance on this plane was not excessively more expensive then what they used to pay for their former rides (C210 and I think a Bonanza) but they appreciated the safety of the 2nd engine.
Timothy wrote:
However, in my opinion, that “properly and promptly” requirement for training types has been a disservice to those operating more capable aircraft in the real world. It has led to a view that your hands have to fly all over the cockpit in double quick time.
I agree.
A pilot I know has converted to a Citation after flying Senecas for a few years and he said the hardest thing was when he had to unlearn the quick reactions to engine trouble required for the Seneca, particularly EFATO. In most jets, you will not touch anything until safe altitude and then, due to the much reduced drag in comparison to a windmilling prop, you have a lot more time in comparison to troubleshoot and finally shut down or do whatever else is required.
There are still folks who do get that wrong, e.g. the infamous shut down of an engine during the Concorde disaster or the Kegworth accident where the good engine was shut down, but with jets you don’t really see loss of control accidents at the rate you see them with props.
What would be interesting however, has one of you got actual experience flying one of the light twins OEI over a larger distance? How do they behave? Is it possible to trim out the yaw and is it approved or possible to use the AP at all? I never did more than a few minutes (OEI approaches) in the Senecas and it was pretty managable, but I wonder how longer flying e.g. from a ETP somewhere over the sea would be like.
What I’m trying to say is that an Apache or Twin Comanche, although certainly much safer over water and inhospitable terrain, will not be able to give you complete dispatch, which I kind of sensed was the intent of your post. During the winters, you’ll most likely be stuck right in the middle of the worst icing, unable to climb out of it or able to shed it. So you’ll have to scrap a lot of trips. Now, if you’re OK with that, or don’t have huge need for it, then that might be fine. I’m certainly never going to discourage anyone from buying a twin! 
Mooney_Driver
The speed of reaction to engine failure required depends on the design of the aircraft the Citation or B727 would not require too much in terms of speed of reaction as the near centreline thrust does not make for much yaw, however the A320 or B737 require a speed of reaction that is much more in line with a light twin.
What you don’t have to deal with on a Jet is the negative thrust if a windmilling propeller.
AdamFrisch wrote:
What I’m trying to say is that an Apache or Twin Comanche, although certainly much safer over water and inhospitable terrain, will not be able to give you complete dispatch, which I kind of sensed was the intent of your post.
Not really. The two gentlemen who are musing over buying a single or twin both have the concern for over water legs, one to the Baleares and another one around Italy-Greece.
Clearly, none of those twins are FIKI, which would be a concern I ‘d have for myself. The smallest twin I know which generally are FIKI are the Senecas. I’ve flown some flights in icing conditions with those during my training and it is not something I’d like to regularly, but it is manageable. Seneca II’s are available at low prices as well, but they are quite load restricted if they are downgraded to 1999 kg.
I have flown some distance OEI following engine failures in the cruise. It is a complete non-event, once the rudder is trimmed out. The autopilot doesn’t even notice.
